User:Boston/Éire

Good work on Fili! I see you've actually done significant work on Wikipedia already, so it's a belated welcome. --Kathryn NicDhàna 19:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Go raibh maith agat. You're very gracious. I've only been wiking for ten days however, so I'd say I'm still wearing the newbie mantle and will be for some time.

Unfortunately, I know I'll never be up to snuff when it comes to citation. I wik almost entirely from memory. Despite the fact that there's no shortage of published sources that propigate rubbish, I understand why Wikipedia standards call for them and know that I should start making an effort in this regard. Thanks again for your note. Wik well. House of Scandal 15:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• There are times when I love being wrong, and this is one of them. A month ago I said that I would never be "up to snuff" when it came to citations. To be candid, I think I was just a little confused about the actually mechanics of the process. Look at any of the articles I've created recently and I hope you'll agree I've gotten very good about listing references and directly citing them when I should (especially when words are like "the biggest..." or "the oldest..." are concerned.) It looks like an old dog can teach himself new tricks. House of Scandal 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi HouseOfScandal - can I point out the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English - when writing topics concerning a locatable topic, the page should use the spelling appropriate to that area, e.g. Irish English (very similar to British English) for the Dún Aengus article, Commonwealth English for Asian trees, etc.; so 'metre', 'neighbouring', and so on - thanks, MPF 01:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the reminder. I knew that in the back of my mind and have applied those principles while making edits, but it has slipped my mind recently, including while I created the Dún Aengus article. House of Scandal 01:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words regarding my edit of the Bodhrán article. I am sorry for screwing up the footnotes. They may have been broken when I cut-and-pasted between Wikipedia and WordPerfect in order to spellcheck. I will be very mindful of that in the future. Or better yet, I should take a few minutes and see if there is an easier way to spellcheck. Wik On! House of Scandal 18:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're most welcome. Me, I use MS Word, and with great trepidation as I know how Word goes "AutoFormat" crazy sometimes. One o' these days, I'll explore these external editors that WikiGurus seem to be using. Or maybe I'll create a Word template for my own use ... in my copious free time. Maybe I'll call it WikiPerfect. – David Spalding ^{Talk, Contribs}
• Ha-ha, your salute makes me think of the painting shanty, e.g. "Wik on, Wik off ... Wik on, Wik off...." :) David Spalding ^{Talk, Contribs}

Excellent job on the Seanachie merge. Nollag shona duit! Flowerpotman 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to correct you, but I can assure you Taig is definitely used in Ireland; I'd go so far to suggest even more than Scotland, who, I believe, prefer "Tim". Also, I don't think derogatory strongly enough describes its usage; round here it ranks as offensive as nigger. BertieBasset 22:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Don't be sorry, I like being corrected. We learn something new everyday but dispelling a wrongly-held notion is a rarer opportunity. So are you saying that in the Republic of Ireland the Protestant minority uses the term (usually privately)? Regarding the degree of offensiveness, I do say in the second sentence that "taig is the most vitriolic slur word in use against Irish Catholics" (and I don't much use "most" on Wikipedia) and also specifically mention "nigger" in the article, so I think that point really is covered. Tell me more about taig used in R.O.I., however. If you can give me references such as I used in discussing the word as used in N.I. that would be great. House of Scandal 22:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It was actually a lot harder than I'd thought to find uses of the word in mainland Ireland. Disappointingly this, in reference to a group based in Carrickfergus, is pretty much all I could find using search engines. Whilst I know word of mouth means little to nothing here, I grew up in Donegal, a county situated north of Northern Ireland whilst still part of the Republic (apologies if I'm tutoring the knowledged) during the Troubles, and heard the word frequently. I'm desperately trying to find a citation to back it up, but with little success. BertieBasset 02:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

(laugh) I think I am going to borrow your "apologies if I'm tutoring the knowledged" phrase...it's a very polite (and in this case, applicable, as I do understand Donegal's status as "northern Ireland" but not "Northern Ireland"). If it turns out that "taig" is almost entirely heard in R.O.I. in relation to the Troubles, and you were mistaken, as I implied above there's no shame in that. In fact if you read Talk:Mission Hill, Boston, Massachusetts you'll find a recent example of me charging into editorial battle on my high horse and getting knocked off it. All that matters is that we all learn. Thanks for the link to that piece in An Phoblacht. There's probably something there I can refernce to improve the taig article. House of Scandal 02:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not commited either way to the image of Vincent Pompe van Meerdervoort on the Bodhran page, but I'm not sure I know why we can't have his name underneath? Attribution is fair ... unless we have an emotional need to make a dramatic stand over this one free use image against the subject. =:o

Actually, sounds to me that if the guy has a problem with image and how it's used, it's not our problem, nor is it WikiPedia/Commons's problem, but a problem for the photog. That is, the subject doesn't like his likeness being distributed. That's why I took it out, not to edit-war over it. Granted, Harmony Glen's page is no more (deleted for being bio-fanzine-like), so self-promo can't be a reason for the name being present.

Now,... the subject was performing publicly, and the photog probably was in his rights to take the photo and post it. But without sifting deeply through the Wikicommons standards for free use images (it is Saturday after all, I want to go outside), I'd say we needn't put the humble li'l Bodhran page in the middle. I'm SURE I can find another fair use or free use pic of a bodhran player. S***, I'll go play at a session and ask someone to take MY picture with MY camera. :D Whoops, would that be self-promotion? Maybe not, if I crop my face out.... Wik on.... David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hmm..okay, I'll confess. I don't at all like the idea of van Meerdervoort trying to use Wikipedia for publicity. That is, of course, wrong. Also, I was having a really bad Wikipedia day yesteday. Two editors I know both rv'd the same thing on me apparently/supposely by accident. I didn't stop another guy from rv'ing something else like a dozen times over until I found two U.S. government sources and Time Magazine to stop him from imposing his wrong info and berating me with sophisticated comments like "yeah, well you know what?" It sucked. Being in such mood, the idea of van Meerdervoort dictating what he can't dicate and abusing Wikipedia really bugged me. So yeah, I hoped it would piss him off. But we should try to hold ourself to higher standards than those who act badly. I believe in following the Wikipedia guideline "Don't be a dick" which mentions two wrongs don't make a right. Also, you are correct...the bodhrán page shouldn't be in the middle. In removing his image, I indulged myself one dickish comment: "I don't want to look at this guy's face anymore." Thanks for the note, have a great weekend. House of Scandal 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Ha-ha! I totally empathize with you, I have WikiDays like that regularly. Have to remind myself that I subscribe to WP:DGAF. And I also have sort of the same reaction to his pic ... it looks like he's trying to squeeze out a turd while playing the drum. Not exactly how I want bodhran players represented. I'll put "find a new bodhran player turd squeezer pic" on my to-do list. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

BTW, the Robbie Harris page, apparently created by Robbie himself, needs help. I've tagged it CsD, but it seems he IS notable ... it's just a conflict of interest issue, with the added distraction of a sock puppet account created to defend it. Article needs third parties who know of Robbie to add some references, tone down the "fan-zine" review-like tone. Can you help? David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 15:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, I am aware of the Harris situation and agree he is notable enough for an article but is also notable as a guy abusing Wikipedia and not even bothering to Wikify his fawning bio. For at least a few hours, I don't want to get involved. I am re-writing the article on Lady Lavery into something ten times longer than it is now. After yesterday, I would rather deal with dead people like Laverly than live people like Harris. House of Scandal 16:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• No worries, the bio page is CsD tagged, the suspect sock/meat puppet account tagged and reported. As a bodhran player, I just might do a little research on teh guy and really edit that page to bring it in line. Bet he'd love that...! David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍)

• I know this picture thing all happened a while ago, I just ran into this text by accident and since the tone of it is not very friendly I feel I at least should say something. To start with, I had nothing to do with the picture in the first place, someone told me it was on Wikipedia (with my name under it) and I went to have a look; lets make clear that I never had any intention to use Wikipedia as a medium for publicity. Since there was discussion going on about my name under the picture I just dropped in to say that I didn't mind. That's all. Now first: I really don't care wether that picture is used on Wiki or not (allthough I have to agree with David Spalding, it is not the most flattering picture-thank you) but -as I presume you can understand- it is nice to be called by my own name rather then 'a bodhran player'. Second, if you people have problems with these things or with me as a person, that's fine, but please talk to me personally about it in stead of writing nasty things on the internet. That's only fair, don't you think? Vincent Pompe van Meerdervoort, 05-07-2007

• • Hi Vincent. While having this conversation I was irked over very separate matters as mentioned above, and my tone reflects that. To whatever extent it seems impolite to you personally I will indeed apologize, very much so, but I hope you can see that my chagrin wasn't directed at you. The issue at hand was a very impersonal one, and my grousing on my chat page is an irrelevant aside to the real matter at hand. As stated above, all images that are released to be used on Wikipedia are done so unconditionally. No person, company or organization is allowed to state conditions under which an image may be used. It doesn't matter if its a picture of a flower, a person, or an old mud-covered boot -- the terms of use about these things are pretty much written in stone (and certainly not by me). It was represented to me that you had stated the photo could only be used if you were identified by name. Stating such conditions would be a policy violation, and my thoughts on the matter were meant to focus on the idea of violating the rules, not on you personally. I don't know if you ever stated such a condition, nor am I accusing you of such. I hope this illuminates the situation somewhat and you have no hard feelings. Thanks for communicating your thoughts about this to me and best wishes to you. --House of Scandal 06:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• • • Hi HouseOfScandal. Thanks for your reply. If I gave the impression I wanted to state conditions, I am sorry, that was not my goal. Anyways, lets forget the whole thing :) and of course, no hard feelings! Vincent, 15-08-2007